Teaching kids about hell?

[Texas Lynn]

Morally, yes. Legally, most likely not, unless it is done in conjuction with other things. Emotional child abuse is the hardest type to prove and authorities are loath to assert the power of the state to interfere in the parent-child relationship beyond the most overt offenses which are generally physical and sexual abuse and neglect.

Considering how many American parents do this in some form or another though it is not likely to be proscribed officially anytime soon.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I wouldn't say myself that smacking children is automatically abuse - but if there are people who can make a case that it is, then it would seem strange if you couldn't also make a case for teaching about hell also being child abuse.

A point was made earlier about how there would be a double standard if nonchristians were to use threats of terrible future punishment to scare children.

 

[ImaginaryVoyager]

I believe it can be abuse in some cases, like where the kids were made to be afraid to visit their dad, lest they die and go to hell--or if they're continually threatened with it every time they spill their milk.

That really hasn't been my experience in the Christian denominations that I've been a part of--even some pretty conservative ones. I've found that it's de-emphasized for the most part and presented as a separation from God and that most Christian parents don't really believe in it anyway in other than a metaphorical sense.

 

[LouTheWicked]

I only believed in God when I was little out of fear of Hell. I was afraid I was going to Hell because I couldn't feel any actual love for God or Jesus because I didn't even know these beings!

 

[Abiel]

In answer to the OP, I suppose it depends on what is taught about hell.

 

[katautumn]

What should dictate what we consider abuse is whether the thing suspected of being abusive have very real negative consequences to the child or subject in question.

I have to disagree with you. I know many adults who, to this day, have deep emotional scars due to their parents getting a divorce. Does that mean if a couple divorces they are abusing their children? I used to engage in promiscuous sex. That was my choice. It yielded negative emotional and mental repercussions. Does that mean every man I slept with sexually abused me? No. You can't just label anything that leaves someone feeling hurt or guilty as abuse. Everyone responds to situations differently. Not everyone who was raised to be afraid of hell has deep emotional scars because of it, even if they did later reject the teachings of their youth.

In the case of religious indoctrination and the countless personal testimonies of individuals who had depression, anxiety, and other ill-effects from religious indoctrination, I’d most definitely call it emotional abuse.

So, in a nutshell, every single parent who teaches their children about hell is an abusive parent? I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with you on this one. I don't know if you are a parent, but I am. I can't even begin to tell you how many mistakes I've made as a parent. I'm a fallible human being. But, being a parent is one of the singlemost terrifying yet incredibly rewarding responsibility and privilege I've ever had in my life.

Browse around fundamentalists anonymous here "fundamentalists-anonymous.org" , and then tell me whether it’s abuse or not. While you’re at it, read the article here "infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/kiefer1.html" on the strategies of Christian Fundamentalism.

I assure you, I will view those links when I get a chance and make note of the testimonies. I'm not saying no child has ever been abused as the result of religious instruction. But what you're trying to do is label all forms of religious instruction that includes eternal consequence for not receiving salvation as abusive and I think your premise is on shaky ground. Yes, there are heartbreaking testimonies from people out there who found it difficult to break free from religion, but we cannot take a number of stories from adults who claim they're still victims of Christianity and try and call something one thing when it isn't all the way across the board. There are also countless testimonies out there of supposed ex-Witches who say their parents made them slaughter cats and performs rituals with kidnapped infants. Does that mean we should call into question every single Neo-Pagan family and investigate them for possible child abuse? Of course not, because I believe families should have religious freedom and privacy. The privilege and responsibility as a parent is that you raise your children as you see fit and then turn them loose in the world and hope you've done a good job.

Isn’t threatening/frightening a child to try and keep them in line tantamount to emotional abuse?

I guess it really depends on how far you take it. Is it abusive to tell your kids that if they aren't good, Santa Claus won't come? It's the same principle. And in all fairness to the Christians, Christian parents don't tell their kids about hell because they want them to behave. They usually do it because they want to be united as a family in heaven some day.

I think the problem here is that, while some methods employed by religious parents in hopes that their children will convert are a bit dicey, you're trying to give too broad a definition of abuse. You're trying to label anything that offends or hurts someone else's feelings as abuse, and that simply is not the case.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I read the following at Answers in Genesis in an article about atheist camps. (Unfortunately my post count doesn't allow me to link to external sites yet)



The girl was only 4 years old, and she's already afraid of hell and accepting Jesus into her heart...

Having gone through religious indoctrination, I can attest to the damage it does. I know for a fact that many who have deconverted from their childhood faith suffered negative psychological effects from those indoctrinations, especially hell-fire doctrines.

I'm fine now, but I remember much uneasiness and even depression whenever I doubted belief in God and in Christ. I "accepted Jesus" countless times throughout my childhood because I was afraid of hell. Even as an adult, my deconversion from theism took over a year because quite honestly it made me sick thinking about it, as the hell fear had been ingrained in me. Fear is undoubtedly a motivator, but is it appropriate to use it as a motivator, especially with regards to accepting and worshipping a "perfect loving being"?

Would making the teaching that kids are going to suffer eternal torture for doubting Christ Jesus equivalent to child abuse be an infringement of religious freedoms? Given that hell doctrines are a central tenet of most believers of the 2 major religions, I'm guessing the answer is yes. But if the situation was reversed and atheists were repeatedly threatening and frightening their children with talk of unending torture, I can't help but think there would be a double standard. I have no evidence to back that up, as of now I'm just reacting to my disgust at what I read while browsing AiG.

No, but letting them watch 4 hrs. of t.v. a day, drink about 56 gallons of soda a year, and feeding them Happy Meals is though.

 

[Emprism]

KatAutumn,
You made some very good points in your last response on the thread. That's the kind of ideas I'm looking for. I know I've gotten a lot of support, especially from deconverts who feel slighted by their former beliefs, but that was expected. To be perfectly honest, I still feel slighted by the fact that I was convinced to believe there was a hell, and that the earth was only 6,000 years old. But, at the same time, it was those beliefs that eventually got me to second guess my belief in God, and come to a more reasonable and happy world view. As other members have pointed out, it was being taught about hell that kept her from becoming a Christian.

Perhaps using the word abuse is too strong in certain circumstances, it certainly is a rather loaded word. Essentially, my problem lies with households which restrict the religious freedom of their child and tell them unequivocally what is true, instead of just what is, and letting the child decide for themselves. It's obvious that children often times grow up believing the religion of their parents. And often times, that religion causes children to think immoral in certain respects which they may otherwise wouldn't. I mean, I grew up thinking homosexuals were wrong or bad because I read it in a book and thought that was the word of an almighty God. (When I stopped believing in the book, I also stopped believing in all the archaic nonsense) When someone believes they've got direct instruction from an omnipotent being, there's no telling what can happen. I'm not blaming all the insanity in society on religion, but certainly in America (and the Middle East), a lot of crap is goign on in the name of Religion.

The root of the problem of why religion is so popular, is I think largely because of the issue I addressed earlier in the thread. Parents indoctrinate their children with these ideas, and before the children have a chance to question, they believe these things are absolute truths. Sure, some children who are in really restrictive homes and societies are able to escape and usually become advocates against religion, but a lot of them fall into the same religion and perpetuate the archaic norms and beliefs which impede the progress of society. In most cases, you grow up in India you'll be a Hindu, you grow up in the Middle East you'll be a Muslim, and you grow up in the West you'll be a Christian. I think children should be educated with all belief systems to come to their own decision, instead of being told what's right.

But then where do you draw the line with restricting parents on what they can tell their kids? Parents have different methods of punishing, of teaching morals, etc., so who's to say which is the right or best method and which one's should not be encouraged? I grew up in a Christian home and went to church until I was 18 and I feel that I learned how to be a moral individual and had a loving church community with lots of support. Anyway, I'm kind of getting off track... The crux of it is, I see that the world has a lot of problems, and I see religions that teach heaven/hell at the forefront of those problems. I don't know what I can do, so I'm trying to figure out what can be done and what should be done. Is it a good idea to pursue the negative psychological consequences of indoctrinating children with hell belief? Or perhaps do a study on the effectiveness of hell indoctrination to keep children and other believers in line? If any of you have any thoughts on these matters, they would be very much appreciated.

Cheers

 

[Robinsegg]

Emprism,
I don't think that targeting those who teach children religions including hell teaching would help. For one thing . . . I don't think you're gonna totally irradicate such teachings/beliefs even to children.
Also, I don't think that these religions are actually to blame for these problems, but people who can't handle others believing differently than they. Thus, the issue becomes hate coming from teachings that are to teach holiness, not the teachings themselves.

I assume that if I believe that homosexual actions are wrong, but do nothing to impede people who perform them (whether directly or through legislation), you have no problem with this belief? It's the actions taken against others who believe differently that needs to be changed.

Rachel

 

[Emprism]

I don't think that targeting those who teach children religions including hell teaching would help.

I think that hell teaching is an area of the Christian faith that even many people who say they’re Christians disagree with. That’s why you get the sects that break off from teaching about hell. Even Catholics have the doctrine of baptism by desire, which is a way to say that not everyone who doesn’t accept Jesus Christ is going to hell. (Any Catholics feel free to correct me if I’ve got that wrong) Because the idea of hell is unpopular to many, and the thought of scaring small children with hell is despicable, I think it’s a good area to target.

For one thing . . . I don't think you're gonna totally irradicate such teachings/beliefs even to children.

I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say here. It’s doubtful that we’ll ever eradicate racist attitudes, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

Also, I don't think that these religions are actually to blame for these problems, but people who can't handle others believing differently than they. Thus, the issue becomes hate coming from teachings that are to teach holiness, not the teachings themselves.

It sounds like you’re saying it’s not really the religion that’s the problem, but rather it’s the people within the religion who aren’t true Christians or true Muslims that are the problem. That sounds like the No True Scotsman fallacy to me. People look at their “holy books” and take whatever message they want from it. Just flipping through the bible, I’ll come upon many passages that preach intolerance. 2 Corinthians 6:14"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? Galatians 1:9 “As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” There are many more that preach exclusivity and intolerance. When people feel they’ve got the absolute truth in their possession and personal direction from an almighty creator, their beliefs are no longer rational. There’s no way to skirt around the issue and say that they’re just not reading the scripture right and taking it for its real message of holiness. The scriptures say whatever people want it to say. It’s why there are so many denominations of Christianity. If a perfect god was really delivering his message for all mankind, you’d think he’d at least make it clear enough for his own believers to understand.

I assume that if I believe that homosexual actions are wrong, but do nothing to impede people who perform them (whether directly or through legislation), you have no problem with this belief?

Of course if you keep the belief to yourself and it doesn’t harm others, I’m not going to impose upon what you can or can’t think, that’s nobodies business but your own. However, if you made your belief known to me, and I didn’t share the belief, I may question it and try and come to an understanding of why you held it. If it turns out that you held the belief for no other reason then because an ancient book said so without justifying it, I wouldn’t respect your belief because it’s not based on reason. But just holding the belief and not causing harm with it would not be a problem for me other than thinking your justification for the belief was lacking.

It's the actions taken against others who believe differently that needs to be changed.

It seems that in order to change those actions you have to get at what’s causing the attitudes. So the question is, “what’s causing those attitudes?” The answer from what I’ve seen so far seems to be people’s personal interpretations of ancient texts which they believe are divinely inspired. If you’ve got an alternative explanation, I’m sincerely curious as to what it is.

 

[Robinsegg]

I think I see what you're saying here. But let me say this concisely:
There are people who are going to hate, no matter what excuse they give for it.
They may hate people who wear purple socks. It doesn't matter what justification they give it, or where that hatred comes from . . . they're gonna look wherever they can (and misuse whatever they can) to show their hatred of people who wear purple socks is right as well as whatever means they use to show their hatred.

Some people will hate no matter what.
Yes, there are verses that say we are to be somewhat exclusive. We are to have close friendships, marriages and businesses with each other as much as possible. I don't remember anywhere in the NT where we're told to hate anybody. We're told to love everyone, and by our love bring others to God. There's nothing offensive in that (I think?). The offense comes in when people forget (or never had) the love involved and go straight for self-righteousness.

Rachel

 

[SallyNow]

And once again, another thread that assumes false assumptions about a group, lumping extremists, conservative, moderates, liberals, all together. It's wrong when it is done in regards to atheists, it is wrong when it is done to Christians, or Buddhists, or Jews, or anyone else.

It is wrong to teach children purely through fear. I say "purely", because to teach a child without reasonable fear is foolhardy. For instance, you can teach your child it is safe to cross the road at crosswalks, but it is dangerous to cross busy roads willy-nilly.

In the same way, you must teach your child that there are consequences to their behaviour. But you also much teach them that they will be rewarded when they do well, and that they will always be loved. To teach the brimstone ideas to children is going too far - it is teaching only fear. However, a child should be taught that there are consequences to bad actions - but they are too young to understand complicated theology, and so it isn't appropriate to teach them the complicated theology surrending Hell.

A better idea, IMO, is to teach that when they do something wrong, they should do their best to correct it.

 

[Emprism]

I think I see what you're saying here. But let me say this concisely:
There are people who are going to hate, no matter what excuse they give for it.
They may hate people who wear purple socks. It doesn't matter what justification they give it, or where that hatred comes from . . . they're gonna look wherever they can (and misuse whatever they can) to show their hatred of people who wear purple socks is right as well as whatever means they use to show their hatred. Some people will hate no matter what.

I’m aware that some people are going to hate regardless, but that’s no reason to make the hatred excusable or encouraged. Look at the human rights movements that have happened in the past hundred years. Racist, Sexist and Homophobic attitudes are attitudes that although they still exist (apparently mostly from those who get their instruction from the bible), are for the large part no longer acceptable in society. The tolerance for different minorities is largely learned just as hatred is learned. But it seems like what you’re saying is that it doesn’t matter where the hatred comes from, even if it is learned, because some people are going to find any excuse for hating. I’m sorry, but that’s just ridiculous.

When people’s attitudes of hate are in the majority instead of in the minority, they are more vocal about it, and also more willing and able to cause harm with it. Have a look at http://www.godhates"sgaf" (backwards) ].com and tell me if you think this kind of hatred towards homosexuals would be happening if there wasn’t large groups of individuals who were reinforced with the idea that it’s wrong from their Christian family and society. The other day I was having a pleasant conversation with an older Christian. She is one of the kindest, sweetest people I know. She gives a lot of her time and money to help others in need. I wanted test my thoughts on the negative impact of religion, and brought up the topic of homosexuality. Now keep in mind she is vehemently against all the harm that’s done towards homosexuals or anyone else. But you know what, she still thinks homosexuality is wrong and a sin. When I asked her why, her only justification was because the bible and the church teach it. Like I said before, when one has the authority of a supreme being on their side, they don’t have to be logical or rational. When’s the last time you saw any “atheists against homosexuals” propaganda?

Yes, there are verses that say we are to be somewhat exclusive. We are to have close friendships, marriages and businesses with each other as much as possible. I don't remember anywhere in the NT where we're told to hate anybody. We're told to love everyone, and by our love bring others to God. There's nothing offensive in that (I think?). The offense comes in when people forget (or never had) the love involved and go straight for self-righteousness.

Romans 16:17 “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.”

2 John 1:10-11 “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”

1 John 5:19 “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness”

I don’t think you can qualify saying, ‘to avoid everyone who doesn’t follow God and the bible because they are wicked and partakers of evil deeds’ is synonymous with “we are to be somewhat exclusive.” That’s just in the New Testament; the Old Testament says a lot more about hating, killing, stoning others. You’re right, there’s nothing offensive about loving everyone, although I find the idea of proselytizing offensive, but that’s for different reasons. Also, I have to disagree with you that the offense comes in “when people forget (or never had) the love involved and go straight for self-righteousness.” The offense comes in when people read a book and think they’re receiving direct instructions from an omnipotent being. The bible can be whatever people want it to be. Sadly, a lot of people learn a lot of very irrational and illogical things from it because a community of believers and religious indoctrination is a powerful tool and hard for impressionable minds to escape. Hatred is learned and passed down, and when the supposed savior of mankind preaches that the wicked (anyone who doesn’t believe in him) are going to suffer everlasting punishment, well it’s no surprise that many people will hate given how their God is portrayed in the bible. I’m sorry if that sounds harsh, as I’m quite positive you are a lovely Christian who is kind to others and espouses love and not hatred. But it’s a fact that if your God exists, he allows and encourages millions of his believers to commit atrocities in his name.

 

[Emprism]

I agree with most of your post SallyNow. However, children shouldn’t be taught about hell at all because there’s no evidence that it exists. The reason I’ve grouped Christians together is because they all get their teachings from the same place, the bible. I’m not saying they get all their ideas from there, sure some of them are raised and learn different things like the factual evidence for the theory of evolution over the creation myth. But for the most part, Christians act the way they do because of how they interpret the bible and the manner by which the religious indoctrinators understood the bible. There will ultimately be no solving of religious conflicts and religious intolerance if the bible is the basis for beliefs because faith is the lack of reason. It’s not possible to conciliate faith based beliefs, because there’s no evidence to compare and come to a true conclusion.

 

[Robinsegg]

I see where you're coming from on this (I think). The Bible is clear on what holy living is. No question. It's also clear that those who do not have strength/help from God cannot be righteous/good, it's just not in human nature.

That said, I believe that hate is taught (though more caught than taught, but that's beside the point). I also believe that people who use the Bible to teach hate are horribly mistaken in their doctrine. You see, Jesus set aside the punishments in the Law (as they were created for a theocratic country, not believers across the world) and ate with "sinners". He went to them with compassion and love.

I'm no Jesus . . . I'm nowhere near that good. But I do see the love and compassion He showed and try to follow Him. If someone asks my opinion on a subject, I'll tell them my opinion as gently as possible and maybe where I get my opinion from. But it is not my job to go around telling everyone they are wrong (that's the Holy Spirit's job, but not mine). I'm not to physically hurt or harm anyone on purpose.

Those who use the Bible to teach hate take things out of context (like it's the law for a new, theocratic country) and misuse it. Yes, there are passages that can be misused in that way. But I don't think that's good reason to "throw the baby out with the bathwater".

Rachel

 

[suzybeezy]

Thread closed permanently after review